Kylie Jaxxon Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Flea Yatsenko wrote: http://www.moviemaker.com/blog/item/cinema_law_same_movie_title_20090522/ There are no copyrights with movie or television titles. http://www.amctv.com/shows/mad-men There is no near the "mad men" logo, so it's not copyrighted or trademarked and you're free to use it however. You are right, Flea...the same as titles of books. There are numerous books titled the same written by different authors. Not sure if this makes a difference, but LL is also trying to play off the premise of the show, not just the title. Also, I still question, if there is nothing wrong with using it, why weren't they more clear-cut about what they were asking for, in terms of the merchants tagging items? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kampu Oyen Posted May 7, 2012 Author Share Posted May 7, 2012 >There is no near the "mad men" logo, so it's not copyrighted or trademarked and you're free to use it however. There are likely various types of intellectual properties involved. The title graphic would not need to have a specific trademark notice in order for the rights to the rest of the show to be infringed or encroached-upon, and for the name of LL's graphic "MadMen5" to prove that this has been done. Again: the title, itself, is not all that important; it just shows that the rest of the promotional concept is, indeed, derivative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kampu Oyen Posted May 7, 2012 Author Share Posted May 7, 2012 >Sure sounds like a conspiracy to me. ROFLMAO! OK, keep on flogging your little straw man if it's all you've got. I never claimed an actual conspiracy, and, even if I had, it would be incidental to the whole point of this thread, which you abundantly continue to avoid. Why do you avoid it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffin Ceawlin Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Kampu Oyen wrote: >I'm not defending LL. Of course not. Except for the part where you keep suggesting that they've done nothing wrong, which is... well, practically all that you've said so far. >I'm pointing out stupidity. You point out what you subjectively characterize as stupidity while explicitly defending transparently stupid decisions by LL. Can you not see why someone might find that to be strange? If you make a claim and I point out the stupidity of that claim, I'm automatically "defending" those you make the claim against? Nice logic. >Conspiracy? You're the one who asserted that you couldn't access the Marketplace after this thread went up, not me... That's not a claim to conspiracy. I used LL in the plural as a manner of speaking. All it would take is one person to press the right button. One person isn't a conspiracy, and I've only ever claimed that the ill will of one person would be necessary to get carried out the bad things in SL I have explained are just as likely deliberate as accidental. Oh, so it's one person at LL who pushed a button so that you can't see the Marketplace. I wonder whose turn it was today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kampu Oyen Posted May 7, 2012 Author Share Posted May 7, 2012 >but LL is also trying to play off the premise of the show, not just the title. Titles, as such, do not matter. If you change the title of a book and nothing else, it's still the same book, under law. The same applies to motion pictures and to other narrative media, even if a book becomes a motion picture or a motion picture becomes a book, etc. Thus, merely changing the name "Mad Men" to Madstyle in no way changes the fact that the Marketplace promotion is conceptually derivative of the Mad Man television program. But when I say that titles, as such, do not matter, this does not contemplate a scenario, such as the one here treated, in which the covert use of a title provides supportive evidence to the claim that other parts of a work are derivative of the same original source. >Also, I still question, if there is nothing wrong with using it, why weren't they more clear-cut about what they were asking for, in terms of the merchants tagging items? Quite. This way of doing things both invites and leads users to believe that the promotion is conceptually derived from the Mad Men television program. That is: even if it were not so derived, it would be reasonable for users to think it to be, should they discover the image name "MadMen5". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talia Davidov Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Kylie Jaxxon wrote: Also, I still question, if there is nothing wrong with using it, why weren't they more clear-cut about what they were asking for, in terms of the merchants tagging items? How about becuase, as we have seen many many times lately, the commerce team sucks at communication, and especially at clear communication. Occam's razor. No need for wild conspiracy theories or accusations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kylie Jaxxon Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Kampu Oyen wrote: >but LL is also trying to play off the premise of the show, not just the title. Titles, as such, do not matter. If you change the title of a book and nothing else, it's still the same book, under law. The same applies to motion pictures and to other narrative media, even if a book becomes a motion picture or a motion picture becomes a book, etc. Thus, merely changing the name "Mad Men" to Madstyle in no way changes the fact that the Marketplace promotion is conceptually derivative of the Mad Man television program. But when I say that titles, as such, do not matter, this does not contemplate a scenario, such as the one here treated, in which the covert use of a title provides supportive evidence to the claim that other parts of a work are derivative of the same original source. >Also, I still question, if there is nothing wrong with using it, why weren't they more clear-cut about what they were asking for, in terms of the merchants tagging items? Quite. This way of doing things both invites and leads users to believe that the promotion is conceptually derived from the Mad Men television program. That is: even if it were not so derived, it would be reasonable for users to think it to be, should they discover the image name "MadMen5". Hi Kampu...I'm more questioning the huge mix up with the tagging by merchants. So many of them do not even know what Mad Men is/are. They took it at meaning hippie era, psychadelic, etc...and tagged their items of this theme. They systematically got them rejected and there was lots of confusion as to why. My question being, if it's okay to use the name/title, Mad Men, why didn't they just state that from the start? Maybe I'm just looking at this wrong.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kampu Oyen Posted May 7, 2012 Author Share Posted May 7, 2012 >If you make a claim and I point out the stupidity of that claim, I'm automatically "defending" those you make the claim against? Nice logic. What other purpose would be served by pointing out what you think is stupid about it? If you're just doing this as an intellectual exercise, telling us that might be helpful in getting the result you want from this process. >Oh, so it's one person at LL who pushed a button so that you can't see the Marketplace. I wonder whose turn it was today. Who is a separate problem. But it's hardly the first time that this has happened to me, or to others. Post something that someone at LL won't like, and then, suddenly, but "pure luck", the page you need to load in order to continue making your point won't load. The specific page. Of course, if you've never been anything but approving of LL, you'd never have noticed this, I understand. AGAIN, though: this point is completely separate from the point of this thread which you continue to avoid, even as I repeatedly point out that you're avoiding it. Why are you avoiding it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kylie Jaxxon Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Talia Davidov wrote: Kylie Jaxxon wrote: Also, I still question, if there is nothing wrong with using it, why weren't they more clear-cut about what they were asking for, in terms of the merchants tagging items? How about becuase, as we have seen many many times lately, the commerce team sucks at communication, and especially at clear communication. Occam's razor. No need for wild conspiracy theories or accusations. Talia, I'm with you on that...LL has a history of being bad communicators I can perhaps see that they didn't think this all the way through when the idea was first thought up, but when the problem became evident, that merchants were tagging the wrong sort of things, why not correct it? Seems to me it would have stopped a lot of unnecessary problems/extra work on their end :smileysurprised: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talia Davidov Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Kampu Oyen wrote: I never claimed an actual conspiracy, and, even if I had, it would be incidental to the whole point of this thread, which you abundantly continue to avoid. You claimed they shut down all of the market place because of your post? No no conspiracy theories here . . . . lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kampu Oyen Posted May 7, 2012 Author Share Posted May 7, 2012 >How about becuase, as we have seen many many times lately, the commerce team sucks at communication, and especially at clear communication. Occam's razor. No need for wild conspiracy theories... That works OK for me, too, at least in this context. Conspiracies are irrelevant to the point this thread was supposed to make. The point being: the Madstyle promotion is derivative of the Mad Men television program, and the title of LL's image "MadMen5" proves this fact. >...> or accusations. The only accusation I want you to care about on this thread is the one stated above; that: the Madstyle promotion is derivative of the Mad Men television program, and the title of LL's image "MadMen5" proves this fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikka Luik Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Well as a "derivative" it didn't work for me. I saw the promo, was curious, read what little blurb there was and had a little poke around what passes for popular culture and - lo and behold something on the telly I never heard of before. So bit of a backfire all round really =^^= Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kampu Oyen Posted May 7, 2012 Author Share Posted May 7, 2012 >My question being, if it's okay to use the name/title, Mad Men, why didn't they just state that from the start? Maybe I'm just looking at this wrong.... Precisely. It's entirely reasonable to believe that if it were OK to use the title, they would have done so, and that, conversely, the fact that they did not almost certainly means either that it wasn't, or they at least believed it might not be ("inchoate infringement"?). That the use of a different piece of text produced a bunch of confusion is a separate question, though, at least in terms of whether that may have been partly intentional. One need not agree with me on all points in order to agree with me on one point. I urge readers to consider as separate from the rest of my rants the question of what it means that LL used "MadMen5" as the name of an image for this promotion, given both the description of the items to be promoted, and how items were chosen to be excluded from promotion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talia Davidov Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Kylie Jaxxon wrote: snip Talia, I'm with you on that...LL has a history of being bad communicators I can perhaps see that they didn't think this all the way through when the idea was first thought up, but when the problem became evident, that merchants were tagging the wrong sort of things, why not correct it? Seems to me it would have stopped a lot of unnecessary problems/extra work on their end :smileysurprised: You want my honest opinion? Because there are certain individuals on this forum that will go to any extreme to prosecute a vendetta against LL. Just why did posts go from actual Lindens names to now the undefined Commerce Team Linden. Why would they post more information when every time they post something the pitch forks are raised and the theories begin to fly. I mean think about we have at least one person out that actively is/was trying to get people to sue LL, posting the address of the jurisdiction of where to file court cases in the Jira etc. Why would LL start communicating more effectively in that environment? When you know there are people trying to twist each and every little thing you do? Now don't get me wrong, I can post a whole litany of stupid things LL has done. The whole madstyle thing while they were having such issues with MP is a perfect example of their stupidity. Not because horror or all horror they might be basing it on some know show, but just because all their efforts should be focused on getting things right. In the end, LL has failed miserably here . . .but . .then again, by perpetuating this hostile environment . .so have we. /me shrugs . . ..my two cents Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kampu Oyen Posted May 7, 2012 Author Share Posted May 7, 2012 >I can perhaps see that they didn't think this all the way through Well, they at least didn't think through to anyone possibly looking at the name they gave to the image, so, that, alone, suggests they could have acted stupidly enough to produce other problems unintentionally, sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kampu Oyen Posted May 7, 2012 Author Share Posted May 7, 2012 >You claimed they shut down all of the market place because of your post? No no conspiracy theories here . . . . lol I claimed "they" were specifically not allowing me to access one web page. "They" being a group of people who would otherwise normally allow it. That's not a conspiracy unless you construe the same "they" all to be in on it, which I did not suggest. Build the biggest straw man you like and you'll still have a straw man. None of this is material to the original point of this thread and you know it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kampu Oyen Posted May 7, 2012 Author Share Posted May 7, 2012 > I never heard of before. This is the ONLY thing I can imagine would enable you to fail to see it as derivative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kylie Jaxxon Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Talia Davidov wrote: Kylie Jaxxon wrote: snip Talia, I'm with you on that...LL has a history of being bad communicators I can perhaps see that they didn't think this all the way through when the idea was first thought up, but when the problem became evident, that merchants were tagging the wrong sort of things, why not correct it? Seems to me it would have stopped a lot of unnecessary problems/extra work on their end :smileysurprised: You want my honest opinion? Because there are certain individuals on this forum that will go to any extreme to prosecute a vendetta against LL. Just why did posts go from actual Lindens names to now the undefined Commerce Team Linden. Why would they post more information when every time they post something the pitch forks are raised and the theories begin to fly. I mean think about we have at least one person out that actively is/was trying to get people to sue LL, posting the address of the jurisdiction of where to file court cases in the Jira etc. Why would LL start communicating more effectively in that environment? When you know there are people trying to twist each and every little thing you do? Now don't get me wrong, I can post a whole litany of stupid things LL has done. The whole madstyle thing while they were having such issues with MP is a perfect example of their stupidity. Not because horror or all horror they might be basing it on some know show, but just because all their efforts should be focused on getting things right. In the end, LL has failed miserably here . . .but . .then again, by perpetuating this hostile environment . .so have we. /me shrugs . . ..my two cents I totally agree with you on this, Talia...I am not a merchant but I read all threads and have seen what you speak of constantly in other threads and on other issues. I have thought along the same lines as you at times. Still, because of a few bad apples, that makes the majority of the merchants collateral damage in these kind of situations. I find it hard to believe that a company would act this way intentionally Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kampu Oyen Posted May 7, 2012 Author Share Posted May 7, 2012 >Because there are certain individuals on this forum that will go to any extreme to prosecute a vendetta against LL. I don't think it's vendetta against LL to repeatedly point out rock-solid reasons why they need to remove one specific person from a position where that person is destroying untold thousands of dollars of brand value on what may even be a daily basis at this point. I think it's being their best friend, actually. >Just why did posts go from actual Lindens names to now the undefined Commerce Team Linden. Simply because Brooke lied, and the fact that she lied was documented. If she wanted to keep lying under her own name, I suppose she could have done that. No one outside LL did anything to force her to start hiding. >Why would they post more information when every time they post something the pitch forks are raised and the theories begin to fly. That would be what responsible, proactive companies call "rumor control". Of course if all they have to offer as "rumor control" is a bunch of lies, maybe they might do better to stay quiet until they come up with anything true that happens to be to their favor. Just like you, I'm eager to hear what else they may have. >I mean think about we have at least one person out that actively is/was trying to get people to sue LL, posting the address of the jurisdiction of where to file court cases in the Jira etc. It's appropriate civil recourse for a civil wrong. If provided sooner rather than later, it may go down as bitter medicine, but it might also be a lot better than allowing the patient to continue sickening himself. > Why would LL start communicating more effectively in that environment? Because they should realize that, on at least enough of the most important points, the specific critic is dead correct, and that they should start taking more seriously criticism offered by that person before LL passes some kind of misbehavior singularity threshold from which there is effectively no way to turn back. >When you know there are people trying to twist each and every little thing you do? What is twisted and what is not twisted is what they need to step up and explain. So far, they have contested NOTHING, ANYWHERE. There is no "twist" to the statement that Brooke lied about the 13 September deployment, and there is no "twist" to the statement that the name "MadMen5" will meet the burden of proof in the question of whether the Madstyle promotion is derivative of the Mad Men television program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kampu Oyen Posted May 7, 2012 Author Share Posted May 7, 2012 > I find it hard to believe that a company would act this way intentionally Of course. Which is why any responsible company would at least have denied by now that the anti-merchant outcomes are intentional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kampu Oyen Posted May 7, 2012 Author Share Posted May 7, 2012 While I'm at it, let me just point out what else is inside the mystery box with the MadMen5 image... https://d1ij7zv8zivhs3.cloudfront.net/assets/5424408/original/MadMen5.jpg?1334696563 (cut to) https://d1ij7zv8zivhs3.cloudfront.net/ I'm no programmer, but if you grab the text strings starting with "asset" and paste them into the MadMen5 image URL, so that "asset" is in the same position as before, you'll see some interesting stuff. (example) https://d1ij7zv8zivhs3.cloudfront.net/assets/1000124/original/3d14c320625c6d2d239c88a7997060ee.jpg Maybe I'm not a very smart person, so help me out here, please. I haven't checked every single one yet, but why are so many of these images for a small group of product lines I have trouble tracking down on SLM or in-world, except for "Nyte'N'Day" ? Can someone please explain this to me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kampu Oyen Posted May 8, 2012 Author Share Posted May 8, 2012 You know, maybe it's just coincidence, but some of those images for companies I can't find on the SLM are for companies that are turning up just fine on websites that compete with the SLM. Why would such stuff be stored along with an image provided to LL for an SLM promotion? I'm sure it's perfectly innocent, so please just explain it to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anaiya Arnold Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 Talia Davidov wrote: Why would they post more information when every time they post something the pitch forks are raised and the theories begin to fly. Because they are a business, not some high schooler's extra credit project, and managing communication, even despite "difficult" customers, is just an ordinary part of running a business effectively. All the other businesses out there manage despite not all their customers being 100% thrilled with them 100% of the time. As to why this particular business not only has so much trouble doing ordinary business tasks like effectively managing communication and PR generally, and why it seems to have so many customers who have a beef with it, since this is not the only ordinary day to day task of a business of this kind that LL just cannot get right, I suggest you have the causal relationship entirely backwards. LL does not have difficult customers, because the really difficult customers are the kinds that just stop using your product when the quality level is below ordinary accepted standards. I do not put up with the kind of muck around I get from LL when I want to go see a movie, hire a DVD, go to the theatre, go gambling at the casino, or take a picnic at the beach. No entertainment offering competing for my time and dollar mucks me around, nor is run by a business that conducts itself so unprofessionally, so frankly stupidly, as this one. Any customers that still give it the time of day, no matter how much they moan about it, are not difficult but exceptionally tolerant. There's no other company in my life I put up with this kind of nonsense from. Much less an entertainment company. This is not an essential utility provider or the only food vendor in town. It's an entirely dispensible entertainment offering. The madstyle crap is just a whole other level of stupidity. You realize they told us to list products if they evoke the 60's, then delisted us for key word spam for doing exactly that, because secretly they did not mean the 60s but some tv show? I do not care how difficult you think X number of customers are. Why should countless rule abiding merchants, many of who have never posted on these forums, be punished, have products delisted, and be called spam word cheats, for following their instructions? That's not an acceptable and fair way to treat anyone, much less paying customers. If you think the fact that some customers are exasperated with previous antics and express as much, somehow entitles or justifies such purile, incompetent, unprofessional, unethical, disrespectful, and discourteous treatment, then I only hope you do not work in customer service. Nothing justifies this conduct. Nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenbro Utu Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 Gotta agree with this assessment. Why leave things so vague? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kampu Oyen Posted May 8, 2012 Author Share Posted May 8, 2012 It wasn't vague at all. It was ambiguous, but only in terms of being derivative of Mad Men or not being derivative of Mad Men. And now it is not ambiguous, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts
Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now